Turn Off Ads?
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 54 of 54

Thread: Should the Reds re-sign Wilson for 2005?

  1. #46
    "So Fla Red"
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    South Florida - The Real Humidor
    Posts
    5,067

    Re: Should the Reds re-sign Wilson for 2005?

    Quote Originally Posted by M2

    Oregon, real simple here, $8.75M, can that buy you a pretty damn good starter or not?
    Did you read my post above? By all means sign a #2 starter for 7-8M per season for three years. One with upside and a proven record. I think this is a small list and probably wishful thinking. Sign me up for an Ortiz or Clement right now assuming I can get them for 3/24 type dollars.

    I've argued only 6-8 true #1/#2 arms emerge in a given season. Maybe 45-50 true #1/#2'se exist in baseball with an average top tier run of 6-7 seasons (thus only 6-8 new guys can join the club in a given year) You HAVE to get one of these guys at almost all costs, especially if you are an organization with none currently and one with a decent young offensive core (read cheap) to build around.

    But, your missing the fundamental disagreement -- You believe Paul Wilson or a PW clone can be had for the 500K-1M and thus PW is not worth the Reds signing him to a 2005 one year deal in the 3M range. I'm saying no way;

    1) You simply aren't getting a Paul Wilson or a PW clone (#3 rotation production since 2003) for sub 1 Mil chump change. Your reaching for retreads for sub 1M and good luck -- you bought a lottery ticket or two and you better hope it works out. For every Loiaza I'll find you at least a half dozen Orcas, Van Popples and Hamiltons.

    2) $2.5-3M for a proven #3 starter is a BARGAIN and a NECESSITY given the Reds gaping 60% rotation hole in 2005 -- and the 40% (Claussen and Harang) aren't exactly surefire locks. If you toss 2.5M fannies into the seats and you can't fund both $8M for a #2 and $3M for a #3 then you might as well just fold up shop -- Haynes/Graves/Lidle/Wilson/Larue gives you $17m to play with -- assuming you can find a taker for Graves contract (unlikely)

    3) Successful teams like the Cards/Giants routinely supplement their rotation with 1-2 proven middle of the road starters. As a bonus they often can squeeze a #2 year out of some of these guys on the cheap (Carpenter, Suppan, Hermanson a few years back, etc.)

    4) If said Paul Wilson is good enough to join the Phils/Mets/Giants 2004 rotation for the stretch run, he's darn good enough to anchor a middle of the rotation spot for the Reds in 2005 -- again at a 1 yr/3M deal range.

    5) I think the market is going up in the offseason and will impact the #2 type guys and drive the middle of the rotation guys like Wilson higher. 12% higher attendance, better economy and more team parity = bigger contracts in the offing. Better pay to play...

    6) We all want five high ceiling guys in the rotation. I'm saying you'll be lucky to have two next season (Claussen and soon to be Reds cap fitted #2 guy ). 3/5 if donkeys fly and the Reds trade for a high ceiling guy too. Better hope is that one of the youngsters emerges in late 2005/ST 2006 to become your third high ceiling guy. That leaves a lot of rotation spots to fill in the next 24 months.

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #47
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Lexington
    Posts
    6,070

    Re: Should the Reds re-sign Wilson for 2005?

    Quote Originally Posted by oregonred
    Did you read my post above? By all means sign a #2 starter for 7-8M per season for three years. One with upside and a proven record. I think this is a small list and probably wishful thinking. Sign me up for an Ortiz or Clement right now assuming I can get them for 3/24 type dollars.

    I've argued only 6-8 true #1/#2 arms emerge in a given season. Maybe 45-50 true #1/#2'se exist in baseball with an average top tier run of 6-7 seasons (thus only 6-8 new guys can join the club in a given year) You HAVE to get one of these guys at almost all costs, especially if you are an organization with none currently and one with a decent young offensive core (read cheap) to build around.

    But, your missing the fundamental disagreement -- You believe Paul Wilson or a PW clone can be had for the 500K-1M and thus PW is not worth the Reds signing him to a 2005 one year deal in the 3M range. I'm saying no way;

    1) You simply aren't getting a Paul Wilson or a PW clone (#3 rotation production since 2003) for sub 1 Mil chump change. Your reaching for retreads for sub 1M and good luck -- you bought a lottery ticket or two and you better hope it works out. For every Loiaza I'll find you at least a half dozen Orcas, Van Popples and Hamiltons.

    2) $2.5-3M for a proven #3 starter is a BARGAIN and a NECESSITY given the Reds gaping 60% rotation hole in 2005 -- and the 40% (Claussen and Harang) aren't exactly surefire locks. If you toss 2.5M fannies into the seats and you can't fund both $8M for a #2 and $3M for a #3 then you might as well just fold up shop -- Haynes/Graves/Lidle/Wilson/Larue gives you $17m to play with -- assuming you can find a taker for Graves contract (unlikely)

    3) Successful teams like the Cards/Giants routinely supplement their rotation with 1-2 proven middle of the road starters. As a bonus they often can squeeze a #2 year out of some of these guys on the cheap (Carpenter, Suppan, Hermanson a few years back, etc.)

    4) If said Paul Wilson is good enough to join the Phils/Mets/Giants 2004 rotation for the stretch run, he's darn good enough to anchor a middle of the rotation spot for the Reds in 2005 -- again at a 1 yr/3M deal range.

    5) I think the market is going up in the offseason and will impact the #2 type guys and drive the middle of the rotation guys like Wilson higher. 12% higher attendance, better economy and more team parity = bigger contracts in the offing. Better pay to play...

    6) We all want five high ceiling guys in the rotation. I'm saying you'll be lucky to have two next season (Claussen and soon to be Reds cap fitted #2 guy ). 3/5 if donkeys fly and the Reds trade for a high ceiling guy too. Better hope is that one of the youngsters emerges in late 2005/ST 2006 to become your third high ceiling guy. That leaves a lot of rotation spots to fill in the next 24 months.
    Hey, 1yr./$3M? I say sign him up, but what does PW say?

    He says he'd be willing to re-up with the Reds for less, but what is less in his mind? $4M? $5M? $6M/per? And if I'm Paul Wilson, coming off a season like this, headed to FA with my history of arm problems, do I sign for 1yr. or 1yr. w/a club option? No, I try to parlay it into at least 2 or preferrably 3 years of security.

    If that's the case, the Reds need to look for the best deal they can get before the trade deadline and get a return instead of losing him.

  4. #48
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Wallingford, CT via Anchorage, AK
    Posts
    318

    Re: Should the Reds re-sign Wilson for 2005?

    Quote Originally Posted by M2
    That's what they did with Jimmy Haynes.

    Oregon, real simple here, $8.75M, can that buy you a pretty damn good starter or not?
    It may not be exactly $8.75M. The Reds actually will have $13.1M coming off the books prior to next season. Haynes, Wilson and Lidle as you've stated. Additionally, Castro, Jones, Larkin, Mathews, Valentin, van Poppel, vander Wal and White salaries will come off the book.

    However, these guys are all on the 25 man roster, so they have to be replaced at least at minimum level (11 players at 300K per or 3.3M total). That leaves 9.8M left. Casey and Graves will receive contractual raises that total together at 1.25M. Now there's 8.55M left. Finally, LaRue, Jimenez, Riedling, Dunn and Kearns are each arbitration eligible and will get decent raises. A conservative figure might be 3.5M total. Which leaves around 5M left, which is looking like it might be Wilson FA territory.

    My assumption is that the salary budget remains constant. In order for the Reds to make some decent FA signings, I think the Reds must trade Graves, but will have to pay some of his salary, it's better to pay 2M to save 4M then to pay nothing and save nothing. Also, the Reds IMO will have to decline arbitration to LaRue and Riedling. They are both passing the point where their benefit to the team is outweighed by the cost to retain them. If the Reds FO don't do these two things or if they do not increase payroll, then 2005 already is starting look like it will be like 2004.
    I'm not a hooligan. I'm a Reds supporter.

    Hooray Beer!

  5. #49
    1990WorldChamps
    Guest

    Re: Should the Reds re-sign Wilson for 2005?

    Quote Originally Posted by M2
    That's what they did with Jimmy Haynes.
    Different guy, different pitcher, different answer.

  6. #50
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    28,173

    Re: Should the Reds re-sign Wilson for 2005?

    Quote Originally Posted by 1990WorldChamps
    Different guy, different pitcher, different answer.
    Same process though. Continuing to do the same things and expecting different results is the definition of what?

    Oregon, apparently the fact that there are a number of pitchers right now pitching roughly as well as Paul Wilson for small bucks doesn't seem to sway you.

    Regardless, I think it's naive to belive that Wilson would return to the Reds for a pay cut (he makes $3.5M this year).

    And, most importantly, doling out the kind of contract it would take to sign Wilson very well could blow any chance the Reds have at affording a bona fide staff leader, again that timing thing I mentioned.

    If the Reds have cash lying around after they address the front of the rotation, then, fine, spend it on a Wilson type.

    But what you're arguing here is that since it might be hard to bottom fish a middler like Wilson that the Reds should bait for him and not even put in their line for a prize winner. That's completely backwards logic. Isn't it that much harder to find a stud out the rummage box than a Wilson?

    DeadRed, isn't White being paid for by the Yankees? Aside from that, I don't count those lower-salaried guys toward available cash because I figure that money's going into the sort of shuffle you detailed. I don't think the Reds will decline arbitration to LaRue, he's too good a player, but I figure he's getting dealt. Riedling's gonzo one way or another if he doesn't finish strong. I'm hoping Larkin returns for the exact same contract he has this year, making that a wash. Anyway, seems to me the Reds can keep the amount they spend on arb guys and lower salaries roughly even, leaving the $8.75M I've been talking about for new acquistions. Adding Graves', Jr.'s and/or Casey's salaries could actually make them small-market Rockerfellers this offseason.
    Baseball isn't a magic trick ... it doesn't get spoiled if you figure out how it works. - gonelong

    I'm witchcrafting everybody.

  7. #51
    Member CougarQuest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Bright, Indiana USA
    Posts
    5,573

    Re: Should the Reds re-sign Wilson for 2005?

    The Reds history of trading MLB players for minor leaguers:

    1995
    Traded Jacob Brumfield for Danny Clyburn

    1996
    Got Cash for Eric Anthony

    1997
    Traded John Smiley and Jeff Brantley for Danny Graves, Scott Winchester, Jim Crowell, and Damian Jackson.

    1998
    I lost my notes for that year

    1999
    Traded Brook Fordyce for Jake Meyer
    Traded Jon Nunnally for Pat Flury

    2000
    Traded Denny Neagle and Mike Frank for Ed Yarnall, Drew Henson, Jackson Melian and Brian Reith.
    Got Cash for Hal Morris
    Traded Manny Aybar for Jorge Cordova
    Traded Dante Bichette for Chris Reitsma and John Curtice

    2001
    Traded Ron Villone for Jeff Taglienti and Justin Carter
    Traded Steve Parris for Clayton Andrews and Leo Estrella
    Traded Michael Coleman and Drew Henson for Wily Mo Pena
    Got Cash for Ed Yarnall
    Traded Rob Bell for Ruben Mateo and Edwin Encarnacion
    Traded Donne Sadler for Cary Ammons
    Traded Mark Wohlers for Ricardo Aramboles
    Traded Michael Tucker for Ben Shaffar and Chris Booker

    2002
    Didn't trade for just minor leaguers


    The Reds history of trading minor leaguers for major leaguers:

    1995
    Traded Tim Costos for Mark Lewis
    Traded John Roper, Scott Service, Rickey Pickett, Dave McCarty and Deion Sanders for Mark Portugal, Darren Lewis, and Dave Burba.
    Traded CJ Nitkowski, David Tuttle and Mark Lewis for David Wells.

    1996
    Traded Jhonny Carval for Gabe White
    Traded Roberto Meija and Brad Tweedle for Kevin Mitchell

    1997
    Traded Decomba Conner and Ben Bailey for Ruben Sierra
    Traded Ray Brown for Joey Eischen

    1998
    Same problem as mentioned above.

    1999
    Traded Johnny Oliver for Chris Snopek
    Traded BJ Ryan and Jacob Sequea for Juan Guzman

    2000
    Traded Dennis Russo for Freddy Garcia
    Traded Kenny Lutz for Juan Castro
    Traded Robert Averette for Brian Hunter

    2001
    Traded Eddie Taubensee for Jim Bowers and Rob Pugmire

    2002
    Traded Ben Shaffar for Jose Silva
    Traded Ben Brussard for Russell Branyan
    Traded David Espinosa, Gary Varner, and Jorge Cordova for Brian Moehler and Matt Boone.
    Traded Pedro Feliciano, Elvin Andujar, Raul Gonzolez, and Brady Clark for Shawn Estes.
    Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

  8. #52
    "So Fla Red"
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    South Florida - The Real Humidor
    Posts
    5,067

    Re: Should the Reds re-sign Wilson for 2005?

    M2 -- I'm going to try this one more time... For the record, I'd go a one year deal with Wilson for 3.5 tops. If he wants a multi-year deal or more than 3.5M for next season then no thanks I have some promising help on the way in the minors for 2006 rotation. Again priority 1 is to find a #2 filler via trade or FA. We both agree on that... If you can fill this hole, then yes you can take a chance on filling the middle of your rotation, I'm saying do both -- you still have at least 40% of a rotation to amass (Claussen, Harang, and magical #2 man + ? + ?)

    I still think you are living in a dreamland (or 1987) thinking you can secure #3 rotation material on the open market in the sub 1M range this offseason. I'd submit for every Wilson you manage to find you'll dredge up a handful of bottom feeders like Van Popple, Hamilton, Orca, Silva et. al. Nothing wrong with paying 3M per season for a solid #3 type starter -- just build it into the budget every year.

    Problem is that the club, that according to Redszone, won't ever pay anyone is locked into two horrible 2005 contracts with KGJ and Graves after cutting a 2.5M piece of JimmaH debris in May.

    Can they find someone to take on Graves contract?

  9. #53
    1990WorldChamps
    Guest

    Re: Should the Reds re-sign Wilson for 2005?

    Quote Originally Posted by M2
    Same process though. Continuing to do the same things and expecting different results is the definition of what?
    You make a good point, but the way I see it Wilson is an asset. You don't give up an asset for nothing. The Reds need to either trade him now or re-sign him. Can't let him walk for nothing. Maybe you sign him and trade him next year, if not now.

  10. #54
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    28,173

    Re: Should the Reds re-sign Wilson for 2005?

    Quote Originally Posted by 1990WorldChamps
    You make a good point, but the way I see it Wilson is an asset. You don't give up an asset for nothing. The Reds need to either trade him now or re-sign him. Can't let him walk for nothing. Maybe you sign him and trade him next year, if not now.
    I actually think they've got a better chance of re-signing him if they trade him. It removes the short window and allows them whittle down his price.

    I figure he's going to see his numbers slide in the last two months of the season as well, pushing downward what will be his free agent value.

    Yet, even if they don't trade him, they could get draft picks if another team signs him. And if they don't dare to offer him arbitration (and I think teams can skunk mid-level players away from accepting arbitration), then what's the harm in letting him walk? If that $3.5M is put to the proper use (e.g. a better pitcher), then you've identifiably gotten something.

    oregon, and I'm saying that signing Wilson first (which is what you'd have to do) would jeopardize the very thing we agree on the team most needing to do. I agree that both could be done, but it's just as possible that both won't be plausible. Plus, I think you're ignoring that Wilson is a #4 starter who's thrown like a #3 guy for a few months. He'll head back down into #4 territory. The core of it, to me, is that the Reds may not have a #3 guy. Maybe Claussen can be that, though I expect him to experience his trials and tribulations through the 2005 season. So, to me, it's a matter of paying Wilson a good chunk of money that might preclude what should be higher priorities and hoping he overachieves or paying another veteran less and hoping he overachieves. You can't buy a guaranteed #3 guy at $1M, but Wilson isn't a guaranteed #3 guy anyway. You can buy a fixer-upper, which is what Wilson was when he walked though the door, and trust that you've identified a bargain innings eater whom your coaching staff can push toward his ceiling. That does happen, frequently. If the team has the money for it, I'm all for making the safer bet. Though that might not be Wilson because, again, the decision on him has to be made too early in the process. IMO, better to spend later on a Wilson equivalent once you figure out what you're doing in other areas.
    Baseball isn't a magic trick ... it doesn't get spoiled if you figure out how it works. - gonelong

    I'm witchcrafting everybody.


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25